digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at gas2.org —

World's First Production Hydrogen Hybrid Available This Fall

gas2.org — A company has finally gone and built the controversial hydrogen hybrid system into what appears to be a true production car. Not only that, the car looks, well, stunning … to put it mildly. Stats: 40 mpg, 0-60 mph in 3.5 sec. If the hydrogen hybrid system has truly been built into a production car, it would kind of put the kibosh on any naysayers.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • MacBookForMe, on 06/04/2008, -7/+8I love it...and I could just dream about it...till eternity and beyond...
  • claybodie, on 06/04/2008, -3/+31If this thing is real it's going to turn some heads...
    • 1807, on 06/05/2008, -3/+4and erect some penises.
    • Buckeye17, on 06/05/2008, -4/+4In order to produce/extract hydrogen, energy is required (typically electricity). Then this hydrogen is used to produce energy (electricity) in the fuel cell.

      Why not cut out the loss of energy (due to inherent inefficiencies), and just use the energy (electricity) directly from the first stage?

      Anyone in engineering knows that a hydrogen car just doesn't make sense.
      • stk198323, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3And that electricity is taken from where exactly? It falls on us from the sky? Even if you make an electric powered car, you have to take the ernergy from somewhere and store it somewhere also! (batteries).

        But that's beside the main point, sure hydrogen is not the most efficient process there is right now. But still do you want your car to go over 500km on a single charge and then take 5-10 minutes to reful or do you want it to go 50km on one charge and then taking4 hours to recharge?

        Seriously some people need to start thinking! Electric car are good... for something that does move a lot:

        Grass Cutter
        Golf Cart
        etc

        Heck maybe even a motorcycle engine (if light enaugh it won't require that much electricity to travel and maybe we could get 200km of range)

        But for a car it's plain STUPID!
        • diggingaround, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Obviously you didn't watch "Who Killed the Electric Car"..
        • Nerys, on 06/06/2008, -3/+2I am so sick of you fraking morons OR you fraking shills or you fracking uneducated sheeple. Electric cars TEN ***** YEARS AGO were going 120-150 miles PER CHARGE and you know what that charge cost? about a ***** BUCK FIFTY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          Is that enough exclamation points for you?

          $1 of electricity will drive an electric (nimh) powered car 100 miles.

          I DO NOT GIVE A FLYING ***** IF 100% OF OUR POWER WAS FROM THE FILTHIEST DIRTIEST COAL POWERED PLANTS HISTORY EVER DREAMED UP this is so little power and therfore POLLUTION compared to the 5 GALLONS of gasoline we use RIGHT NOW to go 100 miles !!

          ON TOP OF THIS I WOULD WADGER MY LIFES EARNINGS that we use MORE god damnd electricity GETTING 5 gallons of gasoline INTO your ***** tank than $1 worth that would drive an electric car 100 miles!!

          I DO NOT ***** CARE if it takes me 6 hours to recharge I AM DOING IT IN MY OWN ***** GARAGE FOR ONE ***** DOLLAR !!!!!

          HOW LONG WILL IT TAKES YOU TO MANUFACTURE 5 Gallons of Gasoline in your garage?

          MY DAILY COMMUTE is 53 MILES each way !!!! this means a 70 mile range in an EV would be MORE than enough for me. DRIVE to work. Plug in at work fully charged by the time I am done work DRIVE HOME !!!

          HOW MANY OF YOU CAN HONESTLY SAY YOU NEED TO GO FURTHER THAN THIS ON A DAILY BASIS? I am betting less than 5% of the population NEEDS to go further than this daily. WHEN YOU MUST go further you get in the ***** gas car till the EV's improve!

          The car would be ***** FREE !!!! IT would not cost me one stinking red ***** cent! A PROPER low end cheap 2 person $10,000 70mile range electric car is ALL I NEED.

          My $4500 a YEAR gas bill would be reduced by OVER $3500 if I used that car ONLY FOR WORK !!!!

          DO THE MATH the savings in gas MONTHLY is greater than the ***** loan payment on such a car!!!!!!!!!

          ITS FREE and paid off in under 3 years Costing me absolutely ***** lutely nothing!!

          HYDROGEN SUCKS !!! less than 25% of power plant energy would actually make it to your god damned wheels on the road!!!

          With an electric car 86% of the power plant energy would make it to your wheels.

          Hydrogen is NOT DANGEROUS. ITs FAR FAR safer than Gasoline. If I was FORCED to choose between being in a ball of hydrogen or a ball of gasoline with a match I would take the Hydrogen in a heart beat and walk away with some cinged hair at most.

          The problem with hydrogen is its a RIP OFF !!! its a god damned ROBBERY of the american people! ITS GOING TO COST YOU $7 TO $8 FOR THE EQUIVALENT OF A GALLON AND NET YOU AROUND 35MPG EQUIVALENT EFFICIENCY!!!!!!

          ITs a ***** CON JOB and it will do NOTHING for the environment! its so damned inefficient currently that it will produce as much pollution from out power plants as the gas cars do now!!!

          Electric cars are SO GOD DAMND efficient that only 7% of the energy is pollutuion the other drops are HEAT in the charger and controller not gaseous pollutuon. 86% over efficiency versus 24% for hydrogen.

          ON TOP OF THAT it gets EVEN BETTER.

          Because we use MORE electricity to get 5 gallons of gasoline into your tank than $1 of electricity into your house GRID LOAD WILL ACTUALLY GO DOWN with electric cars NOT UP.

          ON TOP OF THIS once nanosolar gets there 90cents a watt solar panels into OUR HANDS you can ERASE 100% of your grid load and pollution with a $2600 investment. $1600 gets you the grid tie in. $1000 gets you enough solar panels to produce MORE POWER each month than you will use typically driving an electric car (assuming 12-15 thousand miles a year)

          Now you car is 100% free to drive in 42 states (you SELL the power back to the grid) 100% pollution free and 100% ZERO load on the electric grid and since a EV is a lower load than a gas car you are now a net POSITIVE load on the grid.

          THERE IS NO ***** DOWNSIDE TO ELECTRIC CARS UNLESS YOU ARE IN THE TOP 2% Financially !!!!

          ANYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT EV DOWNSIDES IS MYTH OR PROPAGANDA !!!

          I am sick and ***** tired of people spouting this ***** about how EV is bad for this or that reason and those reasons are utter bull *****!!!

          There is ONE ***** reason I am not driving an EV right now

          Chevron holds the NIMH large format patent and REFUSES to license it. Its a controlling patent. It does not expire till 2015 and there is NO current viable alternative to it.

          THATS why we can not have EV's and THAT is why the pointless TESLA etc.. cost $100 grand !! any idea how hard it is to wire up control and us 6,831 individual batteries? THATS what Tesla had to do since the batteries they NEED are illegal without "chevron's" permission.
        • stk198323, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1@ Neris:

          Calm down with the cap's lock! After screaming this much you must not have any voice so if you don't reply I would understand it. Hope your throat get's well soon dude, next time try to go easy... and also you sohuld wash your mouth with soap young guy, it's not nice to talk to other people saying ***** at every sentence!


          And also, because I really like to destroy all of your good sens and long propaganda post:

          Hydrogen car are eletricly propulsed, hydrogen is converted back to electrcity to run the motor, so it has the same lightweight advantage then electric: no transmission needed but guess what: most of them will be able to be reloaded and the hydrogen will act as a range booster...

          So all that whinning for well... ***** all man!
    • diggingaround, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2KABOOOOOOM!

      HOLY SH*T!
      Are we under attack!?
      No sir... some truck rear ended first hydrogen car...
  • bstory, on 06/04/2008, -7/+12Nice looking car but I doubt that the hydrogen component will be in production by fall 2008 - I mean have you heard of any government tests yet? Seen any little mushroom clouds developing over any car safety testing facilities yet?

    Don't get me wrong I hope the release comes in the fall of 2008 but I haven't heard of any breakthroughs in fuel storage during crashes.
    • Brian48216, on 06/05/2008, -2/+13Hydrogen is actually safer then gasoline in collisions. If you did manage to breach the storage tank, yes the hydrogen does escape, but since it's lighter then air, it dissipates into the atmosphere very quickly- unlike gasoline which will pool, and the vapors linger in the area.
      • xNarrowSoulx, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2Yeah, but the main fear is what if a spark gets to it before it's dissipated, and then you've got lots of compressed, explosive gas going up very quickly. But that's the fear, not necessarily the science. I don't know the science yet, sadly.
        • satanatnmtedu, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1Check out the videos of the Hindenburg. But, what the "naysayers" are saying isn't that such a car is not possible. They say that there are problems with storage, there are problems with production of hydrogen, and they say that there are problems with distribution. The problem is NOT put it into a car.

          It is kinda like the stories of this master modder who gets high gas mileage from a Hummer, but it costs $50,000 to do it. How is this remotely a solution? It isn't.
        • Lazydriver, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1And 38 out of 100 people survived the Hindenburg... Plus, that thing was like 98% hydrogen, whereas with fuel tanks, it should compose of maybe, 10% of the total mass?
        • Nerys, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1And the majority of the deaths on the hindenburgh had NOTHING to do with the hydrogen and EVERYTHING to do with the 100+ foot fall!

          Its not the safety of Hydrogen that bothers me. ITs that its massively inefficient polluting and insanely expensive when electric is so damned cheap and clean.
    • gryphonauto, on 06/05/2008, -1/+4Hydrogen is generated on the car, and no it's not nuclear.
    • Cryptkeeper, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4It is a HOD (Hydrogen on demand) system.

      hydrogen is generated from a body of water, water s not combustable, so only when the hydrogen is extracted, is it combustable. the amount in circulation at any time is very small. Hardly enough for an explosion.
      • Nerys, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Which means its an utter waste of money. It takes TWICE as much to make enough hydrogen to go 1 mile as it does to make ELECTRICITY to go 1 mile.

        IE once you have an ELECTRICAL SOURCE sufficient to generate on demand hydrogen you ALREADY HAVE an electrical source good enough to go TWICE AS FAR with a simple electric motor.
        • theRIAA, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1INCORRECT, it takes 3 times as much electricity to make hydrogen when mass produced. in some car it'll take like 6x more
  • funkdr, on 06/05/2008, -1/+17wow - that's no compact/sedan!
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 06/05/2008, -13/+4Hey nick, I guess I should thank you for putting a negative spin on the article. Now Ronn motors has a less likely chance of getting investors. You pretty much put the last nail in the coffin for Ronn Motors. Say bye-bye to the pretty car.
    • niccha, on 06/05/2008, -2/+4I'd love to think I have that much influence... But I'm pretty sure I don't :) Besides, I didn't put that much a negative spin on it, did I? I was just trying to remain grounded in reality and let the product speak for itself. Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if this car turned out to be reality as much as the next guy (or gal... gotta keep it real). But given what I've learned about hydrogen hybrids I remain skeptical until it's out there and being driven with real world results.
    • wes00mertes, on 06/05/2008, -0/+7Ronn Motors is up 118% today...
    • AllyOfReason, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3...because all investors first consult Digg articles before investing in anything.
  • ColonelTribune, on 06/05/2008, -5/+10Dugg for the fact that it's a nice-looking car.
  • AzzidReign, on 06/05/2008, -6/+13And who is going to drive this when there are no hydrogen fueling stations in 99.9% of the world?

    Congress really needs to push more for this for these types of "green cars" to actually become marketable.
    • ICSU, on 06/05/2008, -0/+8You need to start somehow.
      • diggingaround, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1...buy plugging you electric car in household 110V outlet...
    • Drkgodess, on 06/05/2008, -0/+6They used to say the same thing about gas-fueled vehicles in the early 1900s. The infrastructure will only be built once there is a demand for it. Give it time,but in this case the egg has to come before the chicken.
      • AllyOfReason, on 06/05/2008, -6/+1bury.
      • Nerys, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Last I checked I already have an electrical outlet in my garage. Wheres my EV.
    • AllyOfReason, on 06/05/2008, -0/+8Hydrogen hybrids do not require hydrogen refueling.
    • cdawzrd, on 06/05/2008, -1/+7If it's a HHO system, it uses water, which it runs through an electrolysis system to turn into hydrogen and oxygen gases.
      • shortyjacobs, on 06/05/2008, -3/+9Yeah, so in other words, it's *****!

        If you are using electricity to split water so you can burn it again, you might as well just use that electricity to power an electric engine.....much more efficient.
        • Nemesisesq, on 06/05/2008, -3/+0It's not ***** because the whole point if an HHO generator is to displace some of the fuel with browns gas which burns hotter and aids int he combustion of gasoline there is a synergistic effect, and I suspect the system they are using uses a different type of catalyst that doesn't need to be broken down so it actually takes less energy than it give up. fuel economy is the name of the game not efficiency.
        • BESTenemy, on 06/05/2008, -0/+6Exactly. In addition, by mass, it requires 8:1 as much water as gasoline to produce the same amount of energy. In other words, to have the combustion engine drive the car as far on hydrogen as on gasoline, it would take 8 tanks of water for every 1 tank of gas (that is if the water did not add any weight to the car). In reality, the added weight will further reduce the efficiency of the system.

          This is a scam, but unlike with perpetual motion mechanisms that run on water, it's not as obvious to most observers.

          Hydrogen is not an energy source, it's a carrier and a very inefficient one due to our inability to easily produce, store and transport it. The hype surrounding hydrogen cars is manifesting out of desperation in a search for non-existent substitute for oil.
        • Nerys, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1BESTenemy your are right but for the WRONG reasons.

          There is only ONE source of energy in the universe that we know of and thats STARS.

          FOR OUR purposes hydrogen is as much an energy source as gasoline is and as batteries are. Its a medium to STORE energy.

          Gasoline is the SAME damned thing. You don't think it "poof" magically came out of the either as oil do you?

          The problem with hydrogen is NOT its form of energy it its abysmal efficiency (24%) and its INSANE COST $8 a gallon eq 35mpg eq.

          For the same $8 I can go 800 miles in an electric car and NOT have to buy my fuel from a pump at $8 a gallon eq.
    • poopoo, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Can't you use distilled water off the grocery store shelf?
    • Indierocka, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2Read the previous post about water4gas and it will make sense
  • redcolumbine, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3Ohhh... it's beautiful!
  • niccha, on 06/05/2008, -5/+28@ AzzidReign
    The car doesn't actually need a hydrogen refueling station. That's part of what makes it so controversial. These types of hydrogen hybrid systems work on the premise that they split water into its component parts from an on-board water tank through electrolysis. The resulting oxygen and hydrogen gases are then injected in small parts into the fuel intake of the engine to, in theory, provide more complete and efficient combustion and better mileage. look at http://gas2.org/2008/05/29/save-gas-without-losing ...
    for a more in depth analysis of hydrogen hybrid systems as well as some good commentary on the controversy.
    • RustyJ, on 06/05/2008, -5/+8Is "reply" that hard to click on?
    • Blckecho3, on 06/05/2008, -3/+0Aquafina is gonna skyrocket
    • doctechnical, on 06/05/2008, -1/+8If I'm reading the Ronn page correctly, this is BS. He's got a normal gas engine and is using power from the alternator to provide the current for electrolysis. Unfortunately the laws of thermodynamics have not been repealed, and the added drag on the gas engine will use more power than will be generated by burning the hydrogen.
      • vawksel, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1Possibly true.

        How much energy does it take to break apart H2O, how much energy do you get by burning H+O.

        If they are equal then sure, but if it doesn't take much energy to break apart H2O then you're good to go.

        Some things arn't that stable, I dont know how stable H2O really is.
        • doctechnical, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5Let me put it this way: if you can figure out a way to crack the hydrogen from water with less than or an equal amount of energt than you get from burning the resulting H2, I'll notify the Nobel Price committee.
    • brbubba, on 06/05/2008, -1/+5In addition the company supplying the tech is using a crappy computer case to house the components and is claiming you only need to refill the water supply every 3-4000 miles. So how much hydrogen is this system actually using??? Also there's a little known concept known as hydrogen embrittlement, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlemen ... Imagine your engine block suddenly cracking due to weakened metal. I've emailed the company supplying the technology to see what they say about this, will let you guys know what they say.
      • giskard88, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1yep. It's a scam. The company is a startup, but it's already publicly listed on "Over The Counter Exchange". In other words, they're going to make some noise, generate some press, and then file for bankruptcy once they've roped in a bunch of investors.
      • brbubba, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Thought I would let you all know that I have yet to receive any type of response. Not a promising sign.
  • GardenMandy, on 06/05/2008, -3/+3whoa! sweetness!
  • arlok789, on 06/05/2008, -2/+6Powerful Desire to hump shiny car...
  • kprooney, on 06/05/2008, -2/+5when I first heard about hydrogen powered cars I was too young to drive; now 7 years later I can finally buy one!
  • Diderotten, on 06/05/2008, -2/+40Another amazing eco-car I can't afford. Awesome.
  • B08ama, on 06/05/2008, -1/+19I wish that it looked ***** so that I could buy it.
  • mikhial66, on 06/05/2008, -3/+9His website, http://www.ronnmotors.com looks like a 5th grader got a hold of Front Page. If you can make a car like that, I think you could make at least an impressive website. Compare it to a real company like Bugatti.
    • zyl0x, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3Maybe it helps that Bugatti has cars to sell?
    • Brian48216, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3What's even worse is that they paid money to get that site made.

      Check the bottom left of the site-
      Site by FullFusion
      www.fullfusion.net

      money well spent.
    • optimuscrime, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2I enjoy that their "campus" is a crude sketch. I'd really like to know how this car will be available in the fall when their "campus" doesn't even exist yet.
    • cornfedbiff, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3...and why do they have a picture of an 08' Chevy Camaro in the bottom right corner of their page?
    • diggydougie, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1I don't give a rat's ass what the web site looks like. Some of the most impressive sites are run by scam artists. And some of the most successful companies look like crap. Don't judge a book by it's cover. That said I don't think that the technology works as advertised.
    • bearda, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Something doesn't add up here. How do you get 0-60 in under 4 seconds with an Acura RL engine? Even if you twin-turbo it it'd have to have the weight of a biscuit.
  • terencec, on 06/05/2008, -1/+4I like, how much?
  • Berkana, on 06/05/2008, -4/+12Hydrogen power doesn't make sense, whether for combustion, or for fuel cells. I'm not saying this to detract from green technology, but as far as I see, the hype around hydrogen has been pushed by the oil companies because hydrogen is currently stripped off of hydrocarbons more affordably than it can be electrolyzed out of water.
    The case against the hydrogen economy is spelled out here: http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
    The flow chart on top says it all.
    As Ulf Bosselman put it, the future is not about the hydrogen economy, but about the electron economy.
    • dalittle, on 06/05/2008, -1/+4The good thing about hydrogen (or electricity for that matter) is that it allows for an energy proxy. That is, you don't pump oil out of the ground, refine it, and put it in your car. You can use what ever energy source you have to create hydrogen (or electricity) and then have low impact by the car on the environment when it uses the hydrogen. What makes that good is that as new energy sources come available, you can just change what is powering your hydrogen or electricity plant. You go from many small pollution sources (cars) to a few large pollution sources that you can upgrade easier and manage better.
      • doctechnical, on 06/05/2008, -0/+6In other words,. hydrogen is more of a battery than an actual fuel.
      • Buckeye17, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2Why use electricity to make hydrogen when you could just use that electricity directly? Adding in extra steps only reduces the total energy output.
        • diggydougie, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2You would need a long extension cord. The H is a storage medium more than a source. The other option would be batteries but they are still limited in range.
    • hexydes, on 06/05/2008, -5/+4I like how everyone complains about how the public doesn't care about the environment, but then when someone comes up with a solution, everyone just detracts from it and says, "NO, NO, NO, THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT SOLUTION!"

      Just admit, the only solution you'll be happy with is people giving up their cars and walking.

      Go ahead, bury me. Every time you click the "thumbs down", it's out of spite because you hate that I'm just speaking the truth.
    • JayTee44, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2Hydrogen power does make sense, which is why every car company and nearly every government is funding research into it. Hydrogen, like electricity, can be made with renewable sources and in the future it will have to be made that way, so don't worry about it being made from petroleum processes right now.
      Hydrogen has an advantage over other forms of energy- it's energy density. Batteries don't yet approach this energy density.
      The conversion loss argument is moot- the real argument is whether it is economically viable to use hydrogen.
      Look at the losses from oil in the ground to power at the tires of an ICE car. Same order of losses.
      The problems facing hydrogen fuel cell viability have largely been solved- the technology works and there are incremental improvements coming every day.
    • optimuscrime, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1If it hurt big oil, it wouldn't be on gas2.org.

      Note the name of the website. They have an agenda. Their goal is to promote liquid fuel that maintains infrastructure that can be marketed as green... even if it's not green.
    • PWoT, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1Dead wrong. The ENTIRE point of Hydrogen is that you can refuel when you run out, just like gasoline. An electric car, on the other hand, takes hours to recharge.

      I don't think there's any disagreement that if they invent a way to fast-charge electric cars, that will be the preferable way to go. There doesn't appear to be any such solution on the horizon. And people will never, ever change their driving habits to account for the fact that if they run out of charge on the road, they have to plug in and find a hotel.

      Yes, Hydrogen is just a storage medium and as with any medium there is loss. But that's the price you pay for having a vehicle that you can actually refuel.
    • regeya, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Nah. If anything, the oil companies are pushing for hydrogen because, unlike a battery-powered electric, there will need to be infrastructure, and I'm sure you'll see things like zoning ordinances which won't allow home refueling stations without some beaucoup bucks commercial license that nobody will be able to get...I mean, remember the Hindenberg! Never mind why the Hindenberg really burnt, just remember that it was filled with hydrogen!

      You know it'll happen.
  • JMellissa, on 06/05/2008, -7/+2The only real glitch with that is: where will you get the hydrogen to refuel the beast?
  • ysss, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3With a car this beautiful, you'd better spend a little extra for a chastity belt to protect its mufflers
  • aaronadms, on 06/05/2008, -4/+3well that's definitely a 3D rendering of a car you've got yourself there
  • Terrk, on 06/05/2008, -2/+5That is the best damn looking hybrid ever.

  • blizzard360, on 06/05/2008, -1/+5FINALLY! any ideas about tentative costs?
  • Gustomucho, on 06/05/2008, -0/+14"As of right now, it’s only a test car and some of the quotes from Ronn executives suggest they haven’t actually installed a hydrogen generator into the vehicle yet."

    .... Publicity stun?
  • RedneckRandy, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2I don't know if i believe it because I read articles about this stuff pretty frequently and they're always saying hydrogen is many years away from being feasible but if this is true, it's very cool and very promising.
  • digjam, on 06/05/2008, -1/+7Well , FTHS from Toyota is even cooler... Its 400 hp ,, 0-60 4s and I believe it gives the same 40mpg too...
    http://www.toyota.com/concept-vehicles/fths.html
  • Ghoztt, on 06/05/2008, -3/+6http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/
    Why are we getting excited about a regression in technology?
    • cornfedbiff, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2I agree
    • okaroleo, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2think of it as a necessary stepping stone. Yes its a small one but it will make bigger jumps easier.
      • diggingaround, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1yes.. a good step to total control of who make, transport, store and sell liquid hydrogen... never mind already proven, much cheaper, efficient (EV1) battery powered car.

        The choice is yours.. to buy a liquid hydrogen from big corporations like Exxon Mobile, or to plug your car directly in electrical outlet at your home/work. Maybe even have installed some really cheap solar cells on the roof of your house and charge your car from local house battery storage.
  • ssj2119, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3this made me smile
  • AllyOfReason, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2"As of right now, it’s only a test car and some of the quotes from Ronn executives suggest they haven’t actually installed a hydrogen generator into the vehicle yet."

    Explain to me this will be production ready within a few months when they've yet to even install the hydrogen generator.
  • j3ff86, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3I bet that car gives you a nice, warm feeling through your guttiwuts.
  • wheresjim, on 06/05/2008, -1/+14Very exciting, except they havent even tested the Hydrogen Hybrid part yet, how can they say it works, much less claim production by fall? This is bunk.
  • Blckecho3, on 06/05/2008, -1/+8Cars nowadays are like Jesus....They run on water!

    Waka Waka
    • 1807, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1which would be funny if Jesus ran on water...but in fact..he walked...
  • zyl0x, on 06/05/2008, -2/+6But of course it will cost $50,000 thus negating any kind of fuel savings.
  • doctechnical, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5FTA: "As of right now, it’s only a test car and some of the quotes from Ronn executives suggest they haven’t actually installed a hydrogen generator into the vehicle yet."

    Well, that's rather a non-starter, isn't it. Wake me when they get that last little kink worked out, until then this is nothing worth noting.
  • jmf866, on 06/05/2008, -1/+940mpg of what? Hydrogen? At what pressure?
  • Blckecho3, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3Looks like Bush is declaring war on Atlantis for their water supply!
    • akilleen, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1That's not the reason, didn't you hear that the Atlantians are hiding Osama bin Laden?
  • beevbo, on 06/05/2008, -5/+3Hydrogen fueled cars are a fantasy, there is no logistical reason to believe hydrogen will be the fuel of the future, and they aren't a green technology because the best source of hydrogen is to separate it from natural gas . . . guess what the by product of that process is . . . if you guess CO2 give yourself a gold star.
    • doctechnical, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Hydrogen cars might make sense if you have an ample supply of cheap electricity (ie, nuclear, PowSat, something like that) to crack it out of water.

      I've read about Aluminum/Gallium hydrogen generation, and it sounds very interesting (as yet unimplemented in the real world AFAIK), but again you need oodles of electricity to make the Al.
      • diggingaround, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Than why not directly store electricity in batteries? Hydrogen is great for storing energy for buildings and homes.. not cars. I want cheap renewable energy... we have that already with this recent breakthrough on solar cell efficiency factor increase and gigantic cost/Watt drop.
  • ssn697, on 06/05/2008, -1/+6So it will need water for the hydrogen portion. Can we make it an Ethanol hydrogen hybrid, so we can wast corn AND use more water?
    • doctechnical, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1If the engine were pure hydrogen you could reclaim the water at the tailpipe.
    • JayTee44, on 06/05/2008, -3/+0distilled ethanol from corn is a necessary evil right now. Deal with it. It is only a matter of time until cellulosic processes supply ethanol, methanol, and butanol. Corn is the bridge and the 'startup' source.
      • ssn697, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2I can "deal with it" fine. It is the rest of the world that is getting ***** on.

        I use propane for my truck. Deal with it.
      • diggingaround, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Ethanol from corn is another government run scam... like gigantic subsidies given to farming corporations... and yes, we the taxpayers got stuck with the bill.
    • JayTee44, on 06/05/2008, -1/+0Forgot to add that something like 11 companies have cellulosic ethanol plants under construction or in a real planning process.
  • chamberlanderic, on 06/05/2008, -0/+440mpg ???? my 1998 hyundai elantra do that !!!!
  • Simonetta, on 06/05/2008, -7/+2Stupid, ugly, ridiculous, expensive. An embarrassing display of 'Let them eat cake" mentality. A truly American approach to a global problem in that it has no relevance to the real problem of transporting large numbers of people and goods around the cities in which they live, cleanly and cheaply.

    People, the 20th century is over. The era of sexually-charged machines designed to burn large amounts of fuel to enhance the fantasies of the rich is over. The 21st century is all about real solutions to real problems.

    Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
    • JayTee44, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2fellow comrade:
      some of humanity still has a personality, and wants to enjoy life. If they can afford it, let them do it. People are going to own toys until the end of time.
    • doctechnical, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Paul Ehrlich? Is that you?
    • hexydes, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1You are the people that South Park made fun of on the smug episode. The funniest part about that episode was how right they were.

      THYEEEAAANKS! >-
  • 0150r, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2I'll pass. I get 40mpg already and it didn't take a $50k car to do it. Hydrogen is the 'green' alternative that the oil companies want us to use because of the infrastructure that is already in place for gas. They still want drivers to go to a gas-station to fill up.
    • JayTee44, on 06/05/2008, -4/+0earth to 0150r: oil companies are not pushing hydrogen.
    • optimuscrime, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1you are right on. gas2.org seems to frequently make false claims about the benefits of hydrogen and biofuels, and the few articles they have on EVs seem to always point out the safety problems, ugliness, or high cost. I wouldn't be surprised if the site was a grass roots hype builder for faux-green ideas that are safe for big oil infrastructure.
    • McHoffa, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1and honda is pushing for home fueling stations for their clarity, not just at gas stations...
    • diggingaround, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1FINALLY someone with the brain, smart enough to smell the big liquid hydrogen scam! Thank you 0150r!
  • diggB, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4Video clip of the unveiling in Austin TX, June 3.

    http://www.kvue.com/news/local/stories/060308kvueS ...

    Now for an apology ... this low-quality footage (and the only one I could find) is from a local Austin station and requires you to watch a short ad at the beginning on bunion removal.
  • schneb, on 06/05/2008, -2/+1The answer is not in a NEW car, that no one can afford and will take years to produce. The answer is an add-on to your existing car. Such as what this guy did to his 1994 Ford Escort.
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q1AUEYssry0
    • lynx44, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Do you have a link to an actual guide? Everyone that says they've done this is trying to sell it which makes me extremely skeptical. I'm not going to pay for a scam.
  • s2ao, on 06/05/2008, -3/+3At the moment, electric/hydrogen cars are far worse for the environment than fossil fuel cars. You need the energy used to create the hydrogen to be from a sustainable source, and that source doesn't exist right now -- the vast majority of electricity that is needed for electrolysis will come from fossil fuels. Every step in energy production loses energy and there are many more steps in fossil fuel>>electricity>>electricity transport>>electrolysis>>hydrogen>>kinetic energy than there are in fossil fuel>>kinetic energy. Add on top of that the energy cost of making a hydrogen-powered car.

    Also, you'll need to store a lot more than a few gallons of water to have enough energy to run a car. Most of the mass in water is Oxygen and not Hydrogen (at a ratio of 8:1).
    • Ramble, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Mass has nothing to do with it, the number of moles of hydrogen you can store does.
    • drgreenberg, on 06/05/2008, -0/+0Electrolysis is only one way of splitting water and more efficient ways are on the horizon. These range from catalyzed splitting using aluminum-gallium alloy pellets to water-splitting bacteria.
    • diggingaround, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1How else you expect multinational oil corporations to rake in billions in profit? By selling you solar panels or competing with electric utility power companies? Liquid Hydrogen and Ethanol is the answer.
  • balthisar, on 06/05/2008, -4/+4WTF? Dugg this stinker down. Yeah, the tech's great, and it's what a lot of us want, but this is just fscking deceptive. It's not the first production car, and there's nothing to indicate that this is a production car. The FA is filled with "ifs" and more "ifs". They in fact indicate they've not put a hydrogen generator into a car yet. There are years between "fully working prototype" and "production car."

    So, while it's a cool concept and a neat article, the sensationalism of the headlines are downright lies.
  • cornfedbiff, on 06/05/2008, -3/+6I call *****. Why does the company's website have a picture of an 08' Chevy Camaro in the bottom right corner? The images of the car are CGI. And the technology is not that great. It's a scam. Why are people getting excited about a 40mpg (miles per gallon of "GAS") hybrid (electric or hydrogen as a secondary fuel source) when the 1984 Nissan/Datsun Sentra diesel model got 70+ miles per gallon. It's a way for oil companies to continue to sell a ***** load of gas while giving consumers the delusion of a more efficient car.
    • 1807, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2That's why I traded in my 1989 Toyota Carolla for a 1996 V6 4.0L Ford Explorer, I wanted a vehicle that at least honestly showed me how ***** I was.
  • jp44, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2But how will they deal with smug emitions?
  • optimuscrime, on 06/05/2008, -3/+2I don't trust anything I read from gas2.org. I haven't since the last bogus article on biofuels that made it to digg, which was full of poor logic and false information. It seems to be a front for faux-green ideas that support the liquid fuel infrastructure. Maybe I'm off, but that's my gut reaction.
    • claybodie, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1Poor logic and false information? I'd love it if you could be a little more specific since almost everything we discuss has also been reported elsewhere. I'll debate the pros and cons of a liquid fuel infrastructure any time, and calling the site "faux-green" is a bit of a stretch...
  • JQP123, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3"If the hydrogen hybrid system has truly been built into a production car, it would kind of put the kibosh on any naysayers."

    Can I buy one and test it? Until I can, nothing is "kiboshed".

    Just building such a car says virtually nothing about whether it is a good idea and offers any significant practical advantages down where the rubber meets the road. Just like building an SUV doesn't make gas any cheaper.
  • bombula, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3For all the bozos posting here - this car IS a hybrid: it uses eneergy from gasoline to run a process (electrolysis in this case) to get better fuel economy. This is the same as, say, a Prius which uses energy from gasoline to charge an electric battery and then uses that to get better fuel economy. Whether the claims of how much fuel economy improvements are true or not remains to be seen, along with claiums of reduction of pollution from better combustion.

    BUT. This car does NOT run on hydrogen, or get energy from hydrogen. It is NOT a 'hydrogen-powered' car.
  • aneconcept, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3wordpress !> error goddammit!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 88 of 88 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.